Dutton gets less scrutiny than Albanese but complains more. Time to toughen up

The federal election is shaping up as a surly slugfest between two leaders who are yet to inspire a sour electorate after three years of economic pain. The personal grudge match between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton is turning nastier just before the real campaign begins, and there is still no sign of a startling policy idea that might enlighten voters or energise the race.

The prime minister and opposition leader are caught in the boxing ring of politics, slugging it out over who is the best man for the job, in an endurance test for power. The campaign may be less about who has the best ideas and more about who falls over first.

Illustration by Dionne Gain

Albanese carries the personal cost of higher prices and shrinking household budgets, keeping his personal standing at dangerously low levels. There has been no sign of a shift in thinking in the electorate after the summer break: his net likeability in the Resolve Political Monitor for this masthead remains badly negative.

Dutton is becoming brittle as he comes under scrutiny. The attention is inevitable as election day nears, yet he seems offended when the media asks him about his property deals only months after the headlines about the prime minister’s clifftop holiday home. The truth is that Dutton gets less scrutiny than Albanese but complains about it more.

Two news reports in this masthead illustrate the point. The first was the February 3 report disclosing a Treasury estimate that the Coalition’s tax break on business lunches – allowing small business owners a $20,000 deduction each year – would cost at least $1.6 billion and possibly more than $10 billion a year depending on the number of claims made.

The Coalition reacted by complaining that Treasurer Jim Chalmers had asked officials to cost the policy. To be fair, the officials warned that their costing had a “low reliability” because they were making assumptions about how many people would seek the deduction. Even so, the costing was in the public interest. The real question is whether this idea is a good use of taxpayer funds – and the honest answer is simple: it is not. Instead, the Dutton team confected a narrative about unfair tactics.

Albanese takes a photo with staff during a visit to a Medicare urgent-care clinic in the Victorian town of Sunbury.Credit: AAPIMAGE

The second was the report by my colleague James Massola this week about Dutton’s property holdings and his family trust, based on weeks of checking the personal disclosures lodged under the rules of parliament. The result showed he had owned 26 properties over 35 years – a genuine matter of public interest. This did not come from a Labor “dirt unit” – Massola did the work.

This involved less scrutiny than the months of attention on Albanese’s property holdings, including the sale of a house in Sydney and the purchase of the clifftop home in Copacabana with his partner, Jodie Haydon. It was nothing compared to the attention on Malcolm Turnbull and his money during his time in politics or the intense focus on the wealth of Kevin Rudd and his wife, Therese Rein, when he was seeking to become prime minister in 2007.

Again, the Coalition reacted as if someone had committed a crime. The real response should be to acknowledge the genuine questions about potential conflicts of interest. It seems likely that Dutton benefited from tax concessions such as negative gearing as well as the tax benefits that come from using a family trust. This matters whenever debate turns to tax reform.

A third news story, in another publication, hammers the point home. The Coalition shrieked about “dirt digging” when Samantha Maiden of News.com.au checked the parliamentary disclosures showing Dutton had bought shares in the major banks at a key point in the global financial crisis, making a quick profit. He did this at a time in 2009 when parliament was making immense decisions to support the banks. The Albanese office had spotted the share trades, but Maiden checked the paperwork and produced the facts – and then gave Dutton’s office from Thursday last week until Tuesday this week to respond.

Peter Dutton speaks to the media in Pendle Hill, near Parramatta on Wednesday.Credit: Rhett Wyman

The questions are serious: parliament was rife with speculation and sensitive information about government support for the banks. Dutton disclosed on January 23, 2009, that he had bought shares in Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac. The next day, the Labor government announced the Australian Business Investment Partnership – informally known as RuddBank – with $4 billion to support those same banks.

Dutton says he did not have insider information and did nothing wrong. “I think there were plenty of people buying bank shares at that time because they saw that the shares were depressed and there was an opportunity to purchase, and that’s exactly what I did in accordance with the rules,” he said on Thursday. Fair enough.

The Liberals and Nationals opposed “RuddBank” in the end, so Dutton did not vote for a law while gaining a personal benefit. The biggest federal help for the banks was put in place a few months before he bought his shares, when the government chose to guarantee deposits at the end of 2008. The key point, however, is that his share trading is worth reporting.

Personal stories always matter in politics – and more so on the eve of an election campaign when voters are starting to focus on the two contenders for the highest office. The message for the Coalition should be obvious: stop complaining and toughen up.

The media coverage might be different if there were bold new policy plans on the table, but Dutton has offered nothing much since the tax break on business lunches five weeks ago. In fact, his biggest policy move lately was to copy the government’s $8.5 billion outlay to improve Medicare bulk-billing.

This election is not a contest of ideas, so far at least. The Coalition’s nuclear energy policy is bold but full of flaws. We are yet to see a compelling proposition from Dutton about how the nation’s economy would be bigger and its defences stronger if he becomes prime minister. Albanese has more policies on the table and has begun rolling out his “forward offer” for voters – such as the Medicare spending – but will also need a coherent plan to increase prosperity.

Without ideas, the campaign will be a daily brawl over character. No wonder politics is getting so personal.

David Crowe is chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.